Search

On September 27, 2020, the three-decades-long Nagorno-Karabakh conflict erupted into war. During 44 days of organized violence that claimed thousands of lives, the political leadership of Armenia and Azerbaijan along with public intellectuals, journalists, artists and ordinary citizens, continually and publicly expressed pro-war sentiments and confidence in their victory. This article examines the strategies of Azerbaijani and Armenian political and intellectual elites and the formation of myths and conflict narratives that steadily led the two societies towards the Second Karabakh War. It further examines the post-war discursive developments that are working to set Armenia and Azerbaijan on the path to a new round of destructive confrontation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the establishment of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) in 1890, the practice of honoring the revolutionary acts of its fedayis has been an important means through which to both recruit the next generation of members and to maintain its claim to be the defender of the Armenian nation. It is, therefore, surprising that the decision to form Armenian volunteer units to fight alongside the Russian army between the fall of 1914 and the spring of 1916, is barely mentioned in ARF publications, and given relatively little attention in the historiography of the period. Given the ARF's tendency to glorify the acts of its fedayis it is puzzling why the organization would not promote and honor its members who took up arms in a more conventional manner against the Ottoman Empire. Three possible reasons can be gleaned from the literature. The first two involve the problems the Legions pose to the historiography on World War I in eastern Anatolia and the Caucasus. The third reason involves the legacy of the ARF and the decision of the Armenian Volunteer Legions to retreat from Van and not relieve the Armenians trapped in Muş in the summer of 1915. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper presents a meditation on how memory and repetition are played out when experienced as both a historical event and an ongoing and returning possibility. Amongst the Armenian community in Lebanon repetition takes on a particular salience in the form of a haunting from the foundational genocide of 1915, a genocide that in recent years has been brought back with the events in Syria where family and kin have faced severe hardships, random killings, and destruction of entire villages. In this paper I over various fieldworks in Lebanon return to the incident of the cleansing of Kessab, an important Armenian village in Syria, and how such an event in today's Syria points to past, present, and future forms of haunting but also the reconfiguration of affect. The same event draws different landscapes of the imagination, landscapes of fear, haunting, return, but also of resilience and responsibility in the meeting with the time to come. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article explores the refugee crisis caused by the Armenian resistance to the Armenian Genocide on the mountain of Musa Dagh in Turkey in 1915. It analyzes the depiction of the Musa Dagh resistance in the 2016 film "The Promise." The influence of European humanitarianism on dealing the refugee crisis is discussed, as well as the role of European imperialism in the treatment of the Ottoman Empire after it launched its extermination policy.

The article looks at the material possessions that the repatriates took with them during the Armenian repatriations in 1945-1949. It explores how and why the postwar Soviet Union successfully articulate the claim that Armenian diaspora belonged within its borders. Also discussed is the role of the history of coerced repatriation and displaced persons's resistance to return in shaping the Cold War image of refugees fleeing communism.

In 2015, the Western Prelacy of the Armenian Apostolic Church of America reached an historic, amicable settlement with the J. Paul Getty Museum regarding ownership and possession of eight valuable illuminated manuscript pages that had been secretly cut out of a medieval Armenian Gospel book during the Armenian genocide in 1915-1923. The pages resurfaced decades later in the Getty museum's collection in Southern California. The Church's suit was brought under a novel California statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 338(c)(3), that extended the statute of limitations for certain claims to fine art stolen or unlawfully taken. This statute of neutral applicability was the product of many years of attempts by the California legislature to provide a forum for certain categories of plaintiff victim residents, most notably Holocaust and Armenian genocide survivors and their heirs. After federal courts struck down a series of special statutes on foreign affairs preemption grounds, section 338(c)(3) was finally deemed to pass constitutional muster. It has now served as the template for Congressional legislation in the 2016 Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act, a statute explicitly designed to further U.S. policy with respect to Nazi-looted art. This article explores the long road to section 338(c)(3) and how it may point the way forward for future action. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a historical narrative of the genocide of the Armenians of the Ottoman Empire from 1915 to 1917.

In April 2015 the centenary of the Armenian Genocide was commemorated. Just like the First World War centenary, this anniversary has provoked a flurry of academic and public interest in what remains a highly contested history. This article assesses the state of the current historiography on the fate of the Ottoman Armenians. It focuses on the possibilities for moving beyond the national narratives which continue to dominate the field, in particular through connecting the case of the Armenian Genocide to what has been termed a ‘transnational turn’ in the writing of the history of the First World War. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The conflict between Armenian and Azerbaijan around Nagorno-Karabakh was violent between 1988 and 1994. Nevertheless, Nagorno-Karabakh dispute is regarded as one of the frozen conflicts, which has been witnessed for many years. In order to stop and contain the conflict, other states and international organizations advocated peaceful settlement. However, the problem went through a number of phases and has not reached a final solution despite of many years of negotiation under the auspices of the OSCE Minsk Group. In this context, the objective of this paper is to understand the main impeding factors that prevent peaceful resolution and establishment of a long-lasting peace for Armenia. As a framework to analyze the case of Armenia-Azerbaijan dispute over Nagorno-Karabakh, this paper uses the "constructivist theory", which explains national histories and identities as fluid, evolving, and formed over time, and which claims that it is mainly social relationships between agents, structures, and institutions that can lead to ethnic conflicts. Contrary to the primordialist approach, which treats ethnic groups as concrete and independent entities that exist inherently, the explanation of intractability within a constructivist framework constitutes the main difference. In view of this, government policies are also constructed according to interstate perceptions, expectations and the concepts developed towards themselves and others. As a result, rather than only including one-dimensional "ancient hatred" paradigm; "the problem of security", "image of enemy", "other countries" involvement with having interests in the region", and most importantly "internal politics" can be regarded as the contributors to intractability for Armenia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a report from the general secretary during the World Council of Churches (WCC) Central Committee meeting held on June 8-13, 2015 in Etchmiadzin, Armenia. The report tackles the centennial commemorations of the Armenian genocide, wherein the victims are canonized as saints by the Armenian Apostolic Church. Also discussed are the pilgrimage of justice and peace, the challenges and movements for the WCC as an Organization, and 2016 Central Committee Meeting.

Se presenta una introducción en la que el autor comenta sobre los artículos en este número, los cuales enfocan en el Genocidio Armenio de 1915-1923 perpetrado por el Imperio Otomano.

In October 1916, the French government agreed with Armenian political elites to establish a Légion of Armenian volunteers in British Cyprus to fight the common Ottoman enemy. Despite British, French, and even Armenian rejections of such a Légion during different times throughout 1915 and early 1916, all sides overcame earlier concerns. Understanding how they managed to overcome these concerns will allow for this little-known episode in the history of the Great War in the eastern Mediterranean to contribute to the knowledge on (1) the complex French and British wartime stances towards this region, driven by imperialism and humanitarianism; (2) the ability of local elites to draw concessions from the Allies; (3) the important role played by local British and French colonial and military officers; and (4) broader historiographical debates on the responses to the Armenian Genocide. This article explores the origins of how the Entente co-opted Armenians in their eastern Mediterranean campaigns, but also made them into pawns in the French and British reinvention of their imperial rivalry in this region in order to achieve their post-war imperialist agendas. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This paper analyses the factors that have shaped the Armenian identity over time, based on the main historical events and strategic actors who made their contribution to the becoming of the Armenian people and their identity. The central issue of the article is the Armenian genocide which had a major influence on the way that Armenians see themselves and the world around them, today. The study revealed that not only the genocide that happened almost a century ago, had a major impact on the Armenian identity, but also the current recognition or denial of facts by the contemporary world. In this respect, the role of the Diaspora proved priceless, because they were the ones that pressured their host countries to recognize the genocide and to support Armenia. The topic is presented form a phenomenological perspective, trying to capture the human experience in the way it was perceived by the Armenian people. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present article examines whether the modem State of Turkey (which was officially proclaimed in 1923) can be held responsible under international law for internationally wrongful acts which were committed by the Ottoman Empire against the Armenian population during and shortly after World War I. The first part examines whether Turkey should be considered as the 'continuing' State of the Ottoman Empire or whether it should instead be deemed as a 'new' State. Part 2 will examine the legal consequences in terms of international responsibility for considering Turkey as the 'continuing' State of the Ottoman Empire. This will include an examination of case law and State practice in the context of secession and cession of territory. The conclusion is that Turkey should be held responsible for all internationally wrongful acts committed by the Ottoman Empire (including acts of genocide) which were committed before its disintegration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Armenian Genocide of 1915, while causing substantial loss of life, also had enormous economic consequences. Important new scholarship has established that depriving Armenians of their homes, businesses, and personal effects was a means of ensuring their removal from Turkey. The findings establish that Armenian property was then misappropriated to benefit Turkey. The economic harm continues today, largely unmitigated. Mere economic loss due to State action, alone, is difficult to fit within the accepted definition of genocide. Yet, the mass killings and deportations surrounding the property losses make the economic harm legally relevant. Further, the economic dimension has significance, the genocide aside. Claims for reparation, which arise out of contract and property law, are the most viable legal option for many of the heirs of the Armenians. Pursuing claims, however, is costly and time-consuming. Ideally, the significance of the claims and the difficulties of a piece-meal approach to resolving them could lead to an international claims settlement process for the benefit of the affected Armenians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article discusses whether the International Criminal Court (ICC) could be considered as a possible avenue to address the Armenian Genocide. In light of the jurisdictional limits of the Court, it is argued that it is unlikely that it will ever be a suitable forum in this respect. Indeed, not only are the alleged perpetrators all deceased, but the ICC does not have retroactive jurisdiction. Moreover, it might be the case that some factual aspects of the events might make the crimes against humanity characterisation more adequate. The article concludes with a discussion of the necessity of accepting the limitations of law, notably criminal law, in addressing past events of such magnitude. Ignorance of these limitations makes the operation of trying to get the ICC to address the issue akin to the impossible task of jumping hurdles backwards. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Armenian Question of 1915 should be addressed in a broader context and the events and/or politics that led to the deportation of Ottoman Armenians must be evaluated within the framework of the commonplace population politics in the global context of World War I. By examining unpublished archival sources and existing secondary literature as well as the memoirs of leading Ottoman politicians in the pre-war period, I will question the applicability of the term “genocide” and see whether the cadres of the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP), commonly known as the Young Turks, had any genocidal intention towards the non-Muslim communities in the Ottoman Empire. I shall also put forward many new questions as to whether or not there was, as has been emphasized in the dominant literature, any intent of extermination of the Armenians. Some of the questions to be discussed here are as follows: What was the reason for a sudden change in the Ottoman policies towards the non-Muslim Ottoman citizens even though the Empire had benefited from their service in the pre-WWI period in all sectors of the Ottoman administration? Were there any racist notions in circulation that might have influenced the CUP's policies towards the Armenians in particular? Although Turkism was one of the main pillars of the Ottomanist movement, why did it become the only political solution to save the Ottoman Empire during the WWI? [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The author responds to the book "Genocide As a Problem of National and International Law: The World War I Armenian Case and Its Contemporary Legal Ramifications" by Vahakn N. Dadrian. He questions the accuracy of the book's information about the so-called Armenian genocide. He criticizes Dadrian for connecting the origins of the genocide with a pseudo-religious approach based on a verse found in the Qur'an.

To what extent are citizens able to control their elected officials? Does representation improve when issues become visible? Conflicting results in studies of legislative representation are frequently attributed to issue salience or subconstituency politics. However, most conclusions about the effect of issue salience rely on studies of responsiveness on issues held to be either important or visible. Consequently, we have little idea of how changes in salience serve to alter the representational relationship. To examine this question, we employ a natural experiment to exploit the sudden increase in issue visibility surrounding the consideration of the Armenian Genocide Resolution. We are unable to detect any evidence that salience (as measured by visibility) enhances responsiveness to majority preferences. Instead, salience appears to alter legislators’ sensitivity to different intense subconstituency groups in their districts. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article discusses the humanitarian efforts of the League of Nations in response to the Armenian Genocide in the Ottoman Empire during and after World War I. It particularly examines the campaign to rescue displaced women and children, known as the Rescue Movement. The author comments on humanitarianism in relation to gender, colonialism, imperialism, and ethnicity. He also considers religious factors and perceptions of Islam. Other topics discussed include the League of Nations' Fifth Committee, the Rescue Home for genocide survivors in Aleppo, Syria, and humanitarian worker Karen Jeppe.